You select a door. Then, you open one of the doors you did not select. Behind that door is nothing. You now have the option of changing your choice of door. The question I pose to you is this: Why should you change your choice of door? [ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Reynar impressed everyone with:
A situation like this will never, ever, ever happen to me. I prefer to answer more tangible questions about situations that I might actually come across.
It's alright to say "I don't know."
And what about on a game show? Wasn't there a game show way back when with this exact setup?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I cant fathom any other logic to switching choices.
EDIT: clarification [ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj was listening to Cher while typing:
It's alright to say "I don't know."
Yea, but it's more fun to use your own words against you like that =)
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about dark elf butts:
Before you stand three doors. Behind exactly one of these doors is a fabulous prize (new car, dream vacation, etc.). Behind the other two: nothing.You select a door. Then, you open one of the doors you did not select. Behind that door is nothing. You now have the option of changing your choice of door. The question I pose to you is this: Why should you change your choice of door?
One second. Lemme pull up the lets make a deal paradox site.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Auryfolf ]
Clicky
Here ya go, dude. there's numbers and fractions there. =) and a neat little java applet so you can test it yourself.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon XP obviously shouldn't have said:
I know the correct answer is to change your selection but I'm still not sure I believe the reasoning for it.
I busted out laughing when I first heard KOS-MOS say that, Maradon.
In the example, you apparently always pick a door without the prize on the second try, which isn't possible unless the can be moved, which provides the same kind of interference as the game show host choosing for you. Of course if the prize is always moved to your first choice, then the probability shifts to the first choice.
In all cases the probability is made uneven by giving you better information.
Damn that makes me feel old...
This must be one heck of a coincidence, or Karnaj watched it too.
I didn't even know the name of the game show until a few hours ago, only that it had at one point existed.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Yes, you should change your choice.
When you chose the first door, you had a 33% chance of being correct. After the empty door is open, you still have only a 33% chance of being correct in your choice.
If you change, however, you have a 50% chance of being correct, as there are only two doors left. Thus, by changing, your increase your odds of winning by 17%.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
From the book of T. E. Bloodsage, chapter 3, verse 16:
I haven't looked, so somebody probably already answered.Yes, you should change your choice.
When you chose the first door, you had a 33% chance of being correct. After the empty door is open, you still have only a 33% chance of being correct in your choice.
If you change, however, you have a 50% chance of being correct, as there are only two doors left. Thus, by changing, your increase your odds of winning by 17%.
Yes.
But your odds of winning do not increase by the time you switch the doors, but at the time the second empty door is opened.
Either that, or I don't get it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and OtakuPenguin was all like:
A REMAKE of Let's Make a Deal?What the hell?!
Monty Hall > All
yeah, and some dumb comedian is hosting it.
quote:The only problem with this logic is that, when you receive the new information about the empty curtain you didn't pick, your odds of being correct with your current choice would be expected to increase to 50%.
T. E. Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
I haven't looked, so somebody probably already answered.Yes, you should change your choice.
When you chose the first door, you had a 33% chance of being correct. After the empty door is open, you still have only a 33% chance of being correct in your choice.
If you change, however, you have a 50% chance of being correct, as there are only two doors left. Thus, by changing, your increase your odds of winning by 17%.
The reason to switch is based on the idea that the gameshow host must reveal, from among the two curtains you didn't pick, a curtain which has nothing behind it. By making this conscious choice, the gameshow host preserves the existing likelihood of 67% that one of the two curtains you didn't pick has the prize behind it. He intentionally withholds the new information you expect to receive when he opens the curtain.
Because you technically haven't learned anything new about whether your choice is correct, its odds of being correct do not change, therefore remaining at 33%. The remaining curtain you didn't select acquires the combined probability of success previously credited to the combination of the two curtains (66%). This is why changing your choice improves your odds.
